A feature segment on the US national news show ‘60 minutes’ tonight looked at the status of the Eastern Orthodox patriarch – the leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide – who is located at the headquarters for the worldwide church in Istanbul.
The report left a devastating impression that Muslim Turkey is working to destroy the leadership of the church – or at least undermine the church’s continued existence in that country where it was founded 1700 years ago – by closing the seminary where all future leaders of the church are trained.
The reporter visited an Orthodox monastery that contains a letter that was written by the Prophet Mohammed himself (pbuh) instructing Muslims to protect the Christians in the monastery and to respect their faith throughout the world. The authenticity of the letter is not denied by Muslim scholars.
However, the written story on ‘60 Minutes’ website presents the problem with Turkish authorities as arising from the state’s secularism, rather than Islam.
Bartholomew finds the letter ironic. “I have visited the prime minister, many ministers, submitting our problems…asking to help us,” he tells Simon. But no help has come his way from the Turkish government, which prides itself on being secular and fears any special treatment for Orthodox Christians could lead to inroads by other religions, especially Islam.
Nothing was mentioned in the televised report about secularism. The different impression between the two is so far apart that they cannot both be true. Which is it: Is the Orthodox church being persecuted by intolerant Islam, or by militant secular policy?
Otto Kerner 1:13 am on December 21, 2009 Permalink |
Does the story as aired say that intolerant Islam is to blame? My first guess is that the problem is not religion or secularism but simple oppression of minorities by the majority, which is something that every country has experienced. The “secularism” issue sounds like an excuse, though — I don’t see any reason why reopening Halki seminar should lead to dangerous religious troubles. Anyway, if we stipulate that it would lead to some kind of flare-up of Islamic extremism, that hardly means that “secularism” is at fault.
And/or the Turkish government could just allow someone other than a Turkish citizen to become Ecumenical Patriarch, in which case it wouldn’t make so much difference whether the seminary is open or not. Italy doesn’t try to require the Pope to be an Italian citizen by birth.
midwinterspring 1:56 am on December 21, 2009 Permalink |
“I don’t see any reason why reopening Halki seminar should lead to dangerous religious troubles.”
It wouldn’t, but doing so would set a “dangerous” precedent for giving freedom to religious schools and may ultimately lead to allowing Muslims to open their own schools free of state intervention. This is one of the main reasons why the issue is such a hard one to address, though I wouldn’t deny that the “simple oppression of minorities by the majority” is also a factor.
“Anyway, if we stipulate that it would lead to some kind of flare-up of Islamic extremism, that hardly means that “secularism” is at fault.
It would not lead to any kind of flare up of Islamic extremism, of course, but secularism is indeed part of the problem here. The Turkish conception of secularism is far removed from the simple “separation of church and state.” Under Turkish secularism the state retains complete control over all legal Muslim religious institutions. It shouldn’t be at all surprising if this deformed conception of secularism bleeds through to minority issues.
Otto Kerner 7:47 pm on December 21, 2009 Permalink |
I think it does violence to the language to call this business “secularism”. Maintaining state control over religious institutions is not secularism.
johnpi 9:07 am on December 21, 2009 Permalink |
The headline on this report as it appears on the newswires this morning is highlighting that the patriarch said he feels “crucified.”